Zoning proposal flaws detailed in Hampton memo

HAMPTON — A previously confidential memo now unsealed by the Planning Board paints an unflattering picture of the way a zoning amendment on the Town Meeting ballot was drafted.

Comment

By Nick B. Reid

seacoastonline.com

By Nick B. Reid

Posted Feb. 28, 2014 at 2:00 AM

By Nick B. Reid

Posted Feb. 28, 2014 at 2:00 AM

» Social News

HAMPTON — A previously confidential memo now unsealed by the Planning Board paints an unflattering picture of the way a zoning amendment on the Town Meeting ballot was drafted.

The memo, sent by Town Attorney Mark Gearreald on Jan. 14 to the Planning Board, details some of the concerns that caused Gearreald to conclude, "It might be better to pull the entire article and wait until next year rather than have it go forward with a flawed section ...; contained in it."

The article in question is Article 5 on the town warrant, which seeks to take steps toward creating a more pedestrian-friendly and historic-looking downtown.

At a Planning Board meeting the day after the memo was sent, the board circuitously discussed the memo without plainly describing Gearreald's concerns. Secoast Media Group sought to unseal the memo to gain a better understanding of the issue, especially as the board voted to put the article forward to the ballot in spite of the concerns, but was told it was protected under attorney-client privilege and the board would have to vote to give up that privilege.

The Planning Board did so at its meeting last week, more than a month after the request, and Gearreald sent a copy of the e-mail two days later at SMG's request.

Gearreald states in the memo that he "continue(s) to be troubled by the parking section H2," which reads as follows:

"In order to facilitate village-like uses on smaller lots in the Town Center District, exemptions from the off-street (parking) requirements may be waived through the granting of a conditional use permit ...; provided that the owner/applicant documents that public parking spaces may be located off-site within 500 feet of the proposed use ...;"

Gearreald points to one section with "poor wording" that he said "is surely not what was intended," and offered to change "exemptions ...; may be waived through the granting of a conditional use permit" to "exemptions ...; may be granted through the obtaining of a conditional use permit." The board implemented that change at its January meeting, but Gearreald said that still didn't satisfy his concerns about counting off-site public parking spaces as satisfying an applicant's on-site parking requirement.

He said that he was "not sure this section (H2) is salvageable; unfortunately, if it is just deleted, I think that change would constitute a 'substantive alteration' under RSA 675:IV and would require an additional public hearing for which we do not have time."

That's when he suggested pulling the article and waiting until next year, which the board initially agreed with before deciding to put the article forward anyway.

Planning Board member Brendan McNamara said he felt, at worst, the board could amend the article the following year, assuming that things wouldn't change dramatically in that time and cause a problem.

At a Zoning Board meeting last week, several members criticized a different proposed zoning amendment.

They said Article 3 was contradictory and would allow taller buildings in a new zone on the beach but would prohibit them from casting a shadow on the sand anytime before 6 p.m. on Sept. 1. Mike Whitcher, of Whitcher Builders, said a shadow study he conducted proved even a 4-foot-9-inch building would violate that rule.

These criticisms of proposed zoning amendments come at a time when the Town Planner Jamie Steffen has been placed on an unexplained paid administrative leave.